Someone hates the Government...

“The Oriental doesn’t put the same price on life as the Westerner” said General William Childs Westmoreland in Peter Davis’ 1973 documentary Hearts and Minds. The vehemently anti-war documentary is riddled with similarly painfully ironic quotes that represent the psychological domination of the American over their in soldiers in Vietnam. Davis juxtaposes contrasting images of American brutality with excerpts from interviews, classic patriotic films and footage of the Vietnam War to convey the hypocrisy of the American government. The documentary portrays the government and its soldiers of having a sweeping, ignorant perception on the misunderstood culture of Vietnam. The contrast of the weeping, broken families and General Westmoorland’s insensitive statement conveys the degree to which people of power ignore the collateral effects of war. His statement reflects the westerner’s elitist and antiquated perceptions of non-westerners. Even his rhetoric “oriental,” which has become politically incorrect reflects his and his government’s lack of concern and understanding of the conflict.
Much like Stanley Kubrick’s tactic of juxtaposing humor and brutality to instill a sense of discomfort in his audience, Hearts and Minds juxtaposes the truth of war with Ameican ignorance to instill a similar feeling. The most disturbing part of the film was the conclusion where the documentary portrays a patriotic parade in a small American town being disturbed by anti-war protesters. The “patriots” curse the protesters for being unpatriotic and begin fighting one another, a symbol of America at war with its ideological self. This scene is made painfully ironic by the images of children marching through the streets with fake guns, chanting militaristic hymns. In portraying lines of brainwashed children, the filmmakers intentionally draw a parallel to the Hilter Youth of Nazi Germany who grew up knowing nothing but the morals of the Third Reich. The filmmakers argue that the American government breeds support for their agenda by shaping their citizens into images of what they want them to be.

Tamir Kalifa

Hearts and Minds

Before I began watching this documentary I didn’t quite know what to expect. I couldn’t remember anything that was said about this film in class but after watching a portion of it, it became quite clear what this film’s focus was: uplift Vietnamese while degrading the Americans. Now don’t get me wrong I totally agree for the Vietnamese to finally get a voice in what this war has done to them. I feel that it is very important that Americans get to see how that war affected the Vietnamese. Edward Sowders’ speech hit the nail on the head when he began talking about how the Americans ruined the lives of the Vietnamese. That kind of made me feel good to see that an American was standing up and saying “We were wrong.” What I don’t agree with is the bashing of the Americans. I know that those soldiers weren’t perfect but this film depicts them as monsters. For example the scene about the soldiers throwing the Vietnamese man out of the helicopter because he couldn’t tell them what they wanted to know. Now whether this was a true account or not is unknown according to the film but I still think it was a little extreme to add in this documentary. This just made the soldiers look cruel and heartless. Another example would be how the director kept making it seem like the soldiers were addicted to Vietnamese hookers. I think it is okay to show it once, but repeatedly showing it just made the soldiers look like dogs in heat. That one scene where the two American soldiers were with two Vietnamese ladies doing their business was too long and totally unnecessary.

Now the film did give a raw aspect of the war. It had a lot of good footage of what the Vietnamese saw on a daily basis during that time. I just feel that it was edited to point out good guys and bad guys and for once America was explicitly depicted as being the bad guys.

Peter Davis' Own Heart and Mind

While watching Hearts and Minds by Peter Davis, I chose to focus my attention on the argument that the director intended to make and the way in which he tried to achieve this purpose. The filmmaker has to have made a number of deliberate decisions during the filming and editing process to plainly point to one clear statement, and I find it useful to note the techniques that he used to do just that.

Peter Davis portrays the conflicting attitudes regarding the War in Vietnam in this heart-wrenching documentary. Throughout this piece, the director contrasts the statements and opinions of the people that were personally involved in the war, both the con and the pro. I believe it was important for the director to show the full spectrum of opinions about the war in order to enable each viewer to make the decision on his/her own terms.

I especially admired the director's mastery of playing up the viewer's emotions, such as in the opening scenes of the movie. The documentary begins by showing the villagers going about their daily business with no disturbance or conflict, until the american soldiers start cutting across the screen. This scene was very powerful, in my opinion, because it juxtaposes what the citizens of Vietnam wanted their country to be, and how the United State's involvement is making that dream virtually unattainable. 

Davis also effectively uses sounds to better convey his message. The music choice greatly amplifies the meaning of the scene during which the song is played. For example, Bobby Bare's 500 Miles which is played during the landscape shot of the street of Saigon. It helps the viewer better identify with the soldiers that were forced to leave their hometowns and were flown across the ocean to an unfamiliar country. Davis also uses a number of uncomfortably long pauses during the interviews, and I believe the reason for that is to let whatever was just said to really sink in and to give the viewer a chance to form his own opinion.

I also found it interesting that there is no background narration for this documentary. I have always thought that documentaries HAD to have narration because that is the only way the viewer can understand what is being presented to him/her. Although, this did throw me a bit off guard, I was grateful to be able to simply watch and have the ability to think through the images on the screen without being told what they are and what to take away from them.

Overall, this is an excellently made documentary made by a talented filmmaker. Although, I believe the main intent of Davis' Hearts and Minds was to show basic facts and opinions of both sides of the conflict, it was easy to see where exactly the directors own heart and mind were while making this excellent documentary.

If hindsight is 20/20, "Futuresight" is blind

As Hearts and Minds shows in such a constant and repeated manner, people suffered as a result of the Vietnam War. Vietnamese died. Americans died. Loved ones were lost. It would be foolish to argue with any of these statements. The invention of the camera has allowed director Peter Davis to show us these things. However, what about the wars that were not so heavily filmed? I would venture to guess that people suffered as a result of WWII as well. Americans died. Germans died. Loved ones were lost. So why was Vietnam so different? What makes Vietnam a mistake but WWII a success?

Hearts and Minds is an excellently crafted documentary in that it provides an argument and supports its argument with evidence. When broken down, the entire film consists of three types of scenes: those that show the suffering of the Vietnamese, those that portray the “lies” of the American government, and those that show the go-between: the soldiers who were coerced to impress the suffering on the Vietnamese by the “lies” of the government. When combined, Hearts and Minds conveys a story of an oppressive regime that employs brainless minions to carry out their selfish, evil will. However, Hearts and Minds never addressed the opposing viewpoint.

I believe that the Vietnam War was essentially similar to WWII. Rarely do Americans question the validity of the U.S.’s participation in WWII. Hitler and the Nazis are portrayed in American society as the essence of pure evil, a true threat to humanity, and Americans were the knights in shining armor who successfully slayed the dragon.

However, America only involved itself in WWII when it felt that its safety was threatened. Disregarding conspiracy theories for which I have heard very little believable proof, historical evidence supports the idea that the U.S. only decided to enter WWII after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The U.S. had been attacked, and so it needed to protect itself. Most Americans accept this as a totally logical and justifiable reason for entering the war.

Yet, the situations surrounding the U.S.’s entry into Vietnam are essentially similar to those of WWII. At the time, communism was perceived as a very real threat to the U.S., arguably even more so than the Axis regime. Before Vietnam, the U.S. was involved in the Cold War; a time in American life where school children were subject to bomb raid drills. At this time, communism seemed extremely dangerous. So, when it appeared that communism was spreading, the U.S. government had a justifiable reason to send troops to Vietnam. Just like in WWII, the U.S. was trying to protect itself from a perceived threat.

One of the arguments presented by a few interviewees in Hearts and Minds is that the U.S. should learn from what happened in Vietnam to avoid similar problems in the future, but that is exactly what the U.S. was doing when it entered Vietnam. After trying to remain uninvolved in foreign conflicts during the start of WWII, the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor. So, when another perceived threat, communism, was rising, the U.S. applied what it learned from WWII. The U.S. wanted to attack the enemy before it was attacked by the enemy. So, if WWII and Vietnam began under similar conditions, why did they end so differently?

The reason that the Vietnam War and WWII ended on such different terms can be explained in terms of the cultural differences between the Vietnamese and the Axis powers. If anything, the U.S.’s military advantage over the Vietnamese was far greater than any advantage the Allied forces may have had over the Axis powers. The only reason that the Allies won WWII and the Americans lost the Vietnam War is, as General Westmoreland said, “the Oriental, doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the Westerner.” Granted, in Hearts and Minds, General Westmoreland’s statement was placed directly adjacent to footage of the Vietnamese heavily mourning the casualties of war, and in doing so, Davis is basically mocking what he perceives as the utter ignorance of that statement.

However, I think General Westmoreland’s statement is not at all ignorant, and in fact, summarizes the reason that WWII and the Vietnam War ended on such different terms. Clearly, as Hearts and Minds does such an excellent job of portraying, the Vietnamese were entirely overmatched in the war. Yet, they refused to surrender. So, the U.S. reverted to bombings in hopes of inciting their surrender. The U.S. wasn’t bombing civilians, women, and children because it was a cruel, tyrannical regime. It was a calculated move following the adage “sacrifice a little to get a lot”. Once again, it was a lesson learned from WWII.

The dropping of the atomic bomb obviously killed innocent civilians, yet it also brought about the end of the war, and in doing so, saved countless other lives. Much like this, the U.S. was hoping that the bombings in Vietnam would discourage the Vietnamese to the point of surrender, and in doing so, they would save even more soldiers and civilians from dying. The U.S. government was not a cold, heartless killing machine. In its mind, it was seeking to bring about peace and safety.

Yet, the Vietnamese possessed a stubbornness unlike those of the Axis powers. They were not willing to surrender. Obviously they are still human, and so clearly death still takes a huge emotional toll on the lives of those affected. However, culturally, they were not willing to sacrifice their independence, even at such great costs. Then, as time passed and the threat of communism seemed to fade, the U.S. decided the best decision was to withdraw.

So, if we are to follow the advice given at the end of Hearts and Minds and try to apply what we learned in Vietnam to prevent future mistakes, we are forced to ask “What did we learn from Vietnam?”. I am by no means an expert, but from what I have seen and read, the only conclusion I can draw is that we learned not to rely on our history. Relying on what the U.S. learned through WWII is what caused Vietnam. As the saying goes “hindsight is 20/20”. It’s easy to look back and decide what was a mistake and what wasn’t. However, Vietnam only proves that history is not a perfect predictor for the future.

America wasnt always seen as the good guy...

In this movie I feel like I was better able to understand the feelings of many of the men in the war. In movies everything is so sensationalized that it is hard to make sense of it all. In this one, however, the men are easy to access because of the settings that they are in. The jumps between movies and real life makes this movie easy to understand and very informative. I liked this movie much better then Full Metal Jacket or Platoon, because I was able to know that what these men went through is real and it was not as graphic. It also shows what many of the Vietnamese people were thinking and feeling, “First they bomb as much as they please. Then they film.” Vietnam was torn apart, families in both Vietnam and America were torn apart, houses were torn apart, people were torn apart.
The way that the movie is sequenced is very good rhetorically. The very short clips of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon are all different in what they are saying about the war, and the way they are approaching it. It seems that the progression of the war went along with the harshness of what the presidents were saying.
Then a scene that has the men marching allows us to see the sentiments of many of Americans prior to the Vietnam War. America had just come out victorious and as they sang in the movie it “wouldn’t stop until all the world is free.” The absurdity of all of the men marching along in time with each other singing a happy song is truly astounding. However, you have to keep in mind that movies are made so that people will watch them; this movie shows the great passion that Americans had right after WW II, that Americans wanted to set the whole world free from communist rule. Every so often a scene from a movie is shown, allowing us to see what the dramatized version of events were.
The scenes that are of Americans that were in the war, or a large part of the war, are always serene and calm. They are usually alone and always well put together. They are given the feel of people that are well informed and a little colder then normal people. They are not in a natural setting. General William Westmoreland who was the Commanding General for the Vietnam War from 1964-1968 is sitting next to a tranquil lake while talking about his time before going to war. A man who went on 98 bombing missions sits on steps while casually talking about the excitement of the explosions from the bombs and how it was exciting to be in a life and death situation. The settings are there with a distinct purpose to propose the idea that Americans in the war are not affected in the same ways as the Vietnamese were.
The Vietnamese are portrayed as a people struggling to gain independence just as Americans once did. America and Americans are shown as the aggressor who cares for nothing but winning.

Heartless and Mindless

“The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there,” says president Johnson in a speech about the United States’ presence in Vietnam.  Peter Davis centralizes this thought, in his documentary Hearts and Minds, as he seeks to display the demoralized position the United States held in a persecuted and victimized Vietnam.  Davis does this in part by visually showing pain and suffering on the account of the Vietnamese and then juxtaposing this visual with a supposed American mentality provided by an interview with General Westmoreland.

 

To open this particular sequence, the camera view focuses in on a very informal Vietnamese funeral characterized by a heartbroken motherly figure and a stricken child, serving to openly display the value the Vietnamese place in their loved ones. In the early parts of the scene we witness the mother figure become so stricken by the loss of her loved one that she attempts to climb into his grave as it is being filled.  She is so disoriented and stricken that it takes several people to withhold her from her woeful induced actions. The camera then moves about the scene, stopping on occasion to focus in on a downcast face before it focuses in on the fit of a young boy. The boy expresses himself by means of uncontrolled sobbing and unsuppressed wailing as he drags himself towards and places his face against the picture of a loved one, setting atop a grave.

 

After this chaotic and remorseful scene, Davis moves to an interview of General Westmoreland where Westmoreland downplays the value the Vietnamese place in life. In a very serene and peaceful natural landscape, General Westmoreland himself is dressed very professionally, but in a way that doesn’t draw any connection between him and his military career. Westmoreland is simply portrayed as the ideal American embellished businessman who knows what he is talking about. In this context, Westmoreland is completely separated from that which he seems to be able to offer so much insight.  As he puts it, “Well the oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a westerner.”

 

Ironically the scene soon shifts back to a Vietnamese landscape, which is blown away by a series of explosions at a magnitude that only the American military was capable.  Through this conflict of actions versus words, Davis draws a complete picture of the hearts and minds of all those involved. He portrays an American nation unloading on a nation of which it has a skewed and biased view. I feel Davis is trying to ask: Does the outcome really depend on the heart and minds of the Vietnamese people, or does it depend more on the heartlessness and mindlessness of an oppressive America?

No Hearts and Selfish Minds

While watching Hearts and Minds, I found myself trying to listen for two things: a person who could convince me they believed in what they were fighting for and a legitimate reason for the U.S. to be fighting in the Vietnam War - I found neither. Instead, I found myself wondering what I would have done had I of been a soldier forced to go fight in a war for a cause I didn't believe in. A war with no direct threat to our nation's well being, only a theory that someday the spread of communism would be imposed on our people. The idea that I would be risking my life to prevent a theory, the "domino theory", would most likely end up with me buying a one-way ticket to Canada.

It is obvious that this is an anti-war film, but I think that I am yet to view or read some kind of material supporting what we did in Vietnam. All information I have gathered and analyzed leads me to believe that we were in the wrong. This film really did a good job moving me from my somewhat indifferent position on the U.S. being in the war to me being on the side of "what the hell were we doing over there." You know how at the sporting events, a thermometer looking gadget comes up on the jumbo tron and says "Louder" and you are supposed to scream as loud as you can to move the meter closer to one side. Well, that "louder" was the unsure voices of our soldiers, the politicians admitting they were in the wrong, and the scenes of inhumane deaths pushing my meter closer to the "I'm against what we did in the Vietnam War" side. I was waiting the whole documentary for some person to push my meter back towards the "Quiet" side, the indifferent position I was initialy in, and say something that made me think we were fighting for something justified.

The title "No Hearts and Selfish Minds" came to my head at the same time these other anti-war thoughts did. No hearts sprouted from the scenes of airplanes making daily trips over the Vietnamese land to give them their daily dosage of poison. How did we know that the enemy was going to be the recipient of this poison? We didn't, but we had a general idea that they were in the area and the fact that there were probably innocent people in the area as well didn't seem to be much of a concern leading me to come up with no hearts. We just figured that punishing the Vietnamese on a consistent basis would be at some point enough for them to want to surrender to us and give us the victory. This is where selfish minds comes into play. Rather we had a legitimate reason to be fighting in the war or not, rather we were making progress towards a cause we believed to be justified, we just didn't want to leave Vietnam and have the war remembered as a failure. Even though lifes would continue to be lost, families and friends would continue to be heart broken, our government believed a victory was enough to keep fighting for. Maybe, they were right, maybe their was a reason bigger than I can comprehend at this point with my little knowledge on the war, but I know that I am a believer of solving a situation with words rather than force and the fact that we human beings can get to a point where we are this hostile with one another is beyond me. What have we turned into and how did we get this way? I found myself asking this question as I pressed the power button on the T.V.

Hearts and Minds

From Full Metal Jacket and Platoon to Susan Sontag's Trip to Hanoi, and finally to Hearts and Minds, my emotions have been on all ends of the emotional spectrum. Throughout the first two movies, I was in a constant state of depression and slight anger; throughout Trip to Hanoi, I was slightly annoyed with Sontag's Western viewpoint, but understood the honesty about her thinking; and throughout Hearts and Minds, shocked at the blatant feeling of superiority that many of the Americans felt towards the Vietnamese, and rather disgusted at how Americans treated and viewed the Vietnamese: below-human, simple items. It is still so hard for me to comprehend how the Vietnamese manage to be so strong throughout all they have gone through.

I liked listening to the stories of the pilots the most. At first, they stated how dropping bombs from their planes was "deeply satisfying" and they never had to worry about seeing blood or dead bodies. From the safety of their planes, flying free, all they had to do was press a button, occasionally seeing a few houses, never any people. Towards the end though, one of the pilots felt very sorrowful for what he had done. While he is speaking, clips of napalmed children are shown, their skin burned and peeling off in large chunks. Though the pilot had never dropped napalm, he had dropped other bombs that were still detrimental to the lives of the Vietnamese. He cries while he reflects on how he would react if those children had been his own. The coupling of the pilot's story and the video clips is very moving.

The whole documentary was hard to sit through and listen to not because it was boring, but because of the content and visuals. During the Vietnam War, Americans kept convincing themselves that they were doing the Vietnamese a favor, but what kind of favor is this if the people we are trying to help are left homeless, left without loved ones, and left without daily necessities? One of the interviewed Vietnamese comments on how America bombed their country, and now is back to film the after affects. Many Vietnamese viewed the American aide as more of an invasion, starting a war of genocide. Another Vietnamese stated that because they were fighting for freedom, Americans viewed them as Communist. The people of Vietnam are still proud though, because they have won their freedom.

It is hard to believe that people would impress their biased view upon young children as well. Prisoner of war George Coker spoke to a class of young elementary school kids about how the Vietnamese are "backward, primitive people." Coker views the Vietnamese as worthless, and takes part in the general, superior American view towards the War. Another statement I took offense in was General Westmoreland, who said "Life is plentiful and cheap in the Orient." I think it's so terrible that humans can think that about one another simply because they may act differently or look different from what you may be accustomed to. The Western belief of that time that Vietnamese are expendable objects for amusement or pleasure is rather aggravating.

At the end of the film, the Vietnamese people's extreme anguish from the death of a loved one is shown. The young boy's crying can be heard the entire time in the background, and as the coffin is being covered with dirt, one of the woman tries going in with the dead body. The suffering of the Vietnamese from the War and the destruction that America's intervention caused are explicitly shown in Hearts and Minds. This is a sharp contrast to Sontag's portrayal of the Vietnamese in Trip to Hanoi. She portrayed them as showing very little emotion, rejoicing in the growth of the country but suppressing any feelings of depression. However strong as the Vietnamese may be, they are still human and suffer just as much as any other human being.

Rocky Marciano and the Little Engine that Could

Hearts and Minds asserts that a cultural obsession with winning was one of the main influences upon the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. Although this view is never explicitly stated by anyone in the film, Peter Davis presents his case clearly, first through repetition and later by sharply decontextualized content.

By including numerous interview excerpts in which top US leaders from throughout the Vietnam era invoke such concepts as ‘winning’ and ‘victory,’ Davis makes it clear that he is trying to draw attention to a specific attitude which is common to that group. From the documentary’s broader framework, we can easily infer that Davis’ purpose is to explore the relationship between this attitude and the course of America’s involvement in Vietnam.

The holistic context of the film, in which the war in Vietnam is examined from a wide set of perspectives, can be best summarized as the posing of one giant, “Why?” Or, to use the parlance of our times- WTF? Why did many American leaders, military and civilian, so consistently determine that the best way to deal with the communist revolution in Vietnam was to drop more bombs and send in more troops? Because they wanted to win.

Once Davis has clearly revealed the pervasiveness of the obsession with winning among such American leaders, he reveals this obsession's source with equal clarity. Where did William Westmoreland, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George S. Patton III get this insatiable desire for winning? From high school football.

After seeing reels of jarring explosions and hearing translated anecdotes from elderly female torture victims, our view shifts abruptly to a pastor delivering a cheesy pep talk, on the eve of the big game, to a group of healthy, fastidiously groomed, All-American young men. Later we witness the aggressive energy, bordering upon mania, of a high school football coach, as he addresses his team in the locker room.

Immediately after seeing the coach slap and punch several of his players, exhorting them to avoid defeat at all costs, our view shifts to cheerleaders, referees, a cheering crowd.
We see complicity: Westmoreland, Johnson, and Patton are not a few crazy bastards who just happened to occupy positions of great power at the same time. It turns out the obsession with winning is a fundamental part of the modern American spirit.

Regardless of how convoluted its reasons for fighting a war in Vietnam may have been in the first place, the American goal was clear—to win.

The TRUE "Hearts and Minds"

Take that, Susan Sontag. How’s that for your interaction with the Vietnamese? We are watching a documentary that doesn’t just display “the expansion of medical services, the reorganization of education, the creation of a modest industrial base…” through reading (Sontag, 208). Although we are not experiencing Vietnam through our own firsthand basis, it’s through the Vietnamese and the Vietnam War veterans that we are acquiring this information from.

I acknowledge that “Trip to Hanoi” is similar to Hearts and Minds in that you did go to Vietnam and you did report what was seen there, but as you said, “while a painting or prose description can never be other than a narrowly selective interpretation, a photograph can be treated as a narrowly selective transparency” (“On Photography”, 6). If a picture can say a thousand words, then the moving pictures must say ten thousand.

Hearts and Minds is at all not subtle in introducing the topic of the Vietnam War. The opening scene alone is powerful and overwhelming. Opening to thousands of soldiers in neat uniform, marching rigidly, standing in front of a huge monument, it’s a tremendous “in-your-face” effect that shows how the Vietnam War was a huge deal for the soldiers, and in no way can its effects be ignored.

The beginning was patriotic. There were men who went to war, because it was their duty, killed without a second thought, and smiled at the thought of killing another “savage” because in their minds, they thought they were in the right.

They can’t be blamed. Americans in the 1950s were brought up in the mentality that communism was going to take over the world if America didn’t step in to help the “lesser” countries. They were taught, “without America, the burden of war would be too great.” America was the “warrior country.” These soldiers didn’t have their own opinion about what they were doing, just serving their country and listening to their superiors.

Hearts and Minds showed the war from not only the American point of view, but also the Vietnamese. We hear and see from their point of view. We understand how the war had affected their lives, destroyed their homes, and killed their loved ones. At the same time, we see how strong they are. A Vietnamese man who makes coffins for a living, faces death everyday, says that, “no matter how many decades America fights, it will never conquer Vietnam… over here, as long as there is rice to eat, we'll keep fighting. And if the rice runs out, we'll plow the fields and do it again.” The Vietnamese have fought for their independence for a long time. They have a history of over five thousands years, and they will not allow it to be destroyed by a foreigner.

The turning point of the documentary for me was when reality settles in. We see the brutality of war. The Vietnamese are abused. The camera shows the same Vietnam War veterans in full view, and we see the amputated legs and arms. Americans at home don’t know the reason for the war, thinking that we’re “fighting for the North Vietnamese, right?”

This is the truth of the Vietnam War. It isn’t the simple minded Vietnamese portrayed in “Trip to Hanoi.” It isn’t all about showing your expertise and watching explosions. It’s the death of lives, destruction of lives, and a lasting scar in all lives involved.

//edit: I'm sorry for the incorrect spacing. For some reason it keeps printing out the html code for my paper, and I don't understand it to fix the spacing.

Personal Revolution is the First Step Towards Understanding - Tamir Kalifa

Susan Sontag’s writing on the conflict in Vietnam holds an important anthropological perspective that is often overlooked during wartime. In order to gain support for a foreign conflict, nations will attempt to define the conflict, ascribing a sense of order that the public will understand. For example: containing the spread of communism or a “war on terror.” In doing so, the first elements forgotten are the citizens of the “enemy” state that are no different from you and I. War is about governments fighting one another, not the people. The year 1968 was defined by raging anti-war sentiment and yet Sontag, an intellectual powerhouse, strays from the popular analysis of the war by focusing on the people of Vietnam rather than the banality of the conflict.
Though her writing centers on her perception of the foreign state, A Trip to Hanoi opens with Sontag doubting her ethos. She concedes that as she has no credibility to write about the conflict, she “…doubted that [her] account of such a trip could add anything new to the already eloquent opposition of the war.” This rhetorical tactic lowers the expectations for Sontag’s conclusions but allows for a unique vision unseen by “journalists…political activists [or] Asian specialists.” In establishing her individuality, Sontag’s writing reflects that of a diary entry rather than a comprehensive analysis of the conflict. This style is suitable to writing about the people of Vietnam because it is personal and subjective and does not have the preconceived notions a more educated individual on the issue might hold.
Sontag devotes the first few pages to conveying the malleable state of her perception of Vietnam. Her initial writing reflects the common thought she and her fellow countrymen bore prior to her arrival at Vietnam. This represents the average, arbitrary image of the war any foreigner would have. She quickly begins to challenge her views as she describes, “…being piled with gifts and flowers and rhetoric and tea and seemingly exaggerated kindness.” From the moment she encounters the Vietnamese her thought process shifts to attempting to understand the people. This thought process represents the capacity America has to see the Vietnamese on equal ground however are unable to because of the nationalistic rhetoric used by the government in contrast to the images of slaughter and suffering the hands of the American government. This contradictory image inhibits anyone who has not set foot in a city such as Hanoi from understanding the conflict. By coming to the reluctant conclusion that the conflict in Vietnam is not what she expected, Sontag proves that thoughts and perceptions have the capacity to change.
However, it is not as simple as this. Sontag soon realizes, through conversing with citizens, how complex of a society Vietnam is. She talks about how disenfranchised they had been under French rule, how far they had come since then and how we as American’s cannot possibly understand how they feel because our cultures are so polarized. She describes this tension as a “…hopeless” barrier she cannot cross because there is no common cultural ground other than the simplistic human similarities in lifestyle.
Sontag summarizes the significance of open thoughts when she says at the end of the essay, “An event that makes new feelings conscious is always the most important experience a person can have.” This statement embodies the entire essay because it represents the human capacity to change the way they think. One of the greatest problems during the Vietnam was the American inability to experience new feelings that would allow them to perceive the conflict differently. Part of this is due to the physical and cultural difference between American and Vietnam; however, the greatest barrier was psychological. The inability to concede and think openly about the conflict in Vietnam marred a country in a polarized argument between the nationalistic campaign to rescue a vulnerable nation and an enraged anti-war public. Sontag’s conclusion implies the possibilities of change and lessons other cultures have to offer. While they must be sought, the knowledge gained is invaluable as, “what happened to [her] in North Vietnam did not end with [her] return to America, but is still going on.”

Trip to Hanoi

In my reading of Trip to Hanoi I didn't know what to expect from the read. I knew it was going to be a journal and I knew it was going to be about a woman's trip to Vietnam, and that was exactly what I got. I feel bad for almost saying that this journal was somewhat predictable in my eyes in the sense of Sontag's renewed perspective of the country. Her attitude going into the trip was not to write about it and she expected a totally different experience and surprise (sarcastic), it wasn't quite what she imagined.

In beginning this story I was very put off by Sontag's initial feelings and attitudes towards the Vietnam. I know that she was ignorant in the sense of she did not know what to expect or what the people of the country were like, but during the beginning of her journal she kept referring to the Vietnamese as "child-like," and to be quite honest I felt her initial attitudes to be quite arrogant. Just because there is a cultural difference and barrier does not mean that the people of the country are child-like and simple. Or to be exact, she described that after being in the country for such a period of time when she interacted with someone of her own nationality it was as if they were talking baby-talk.

However, I do notice that the longer she stayed in Hanoi the more appreciation she aquired for the country and its people. On May 5th she distinctly talked about the physical differences of the people of Hanoi from Americans. She makes note of the fact that she dwells in the attention she gets from onlookers who notice the incredible height difference of Americans. Also the fact that the men of the country always looks 10 years younger than what they are, but yet we fall back into that arrogant style aura that I felt when reading her journal. Nevertheless, I believe a true change began taking shape when she realized that the people of Vietnam weren't angry with Americans just with the present government and to her surprise as would many would be, they even described Americans as being their friends. But their kindness could not be regarded as simple kindness but in the eyes of Sontag it was beautiful, in a child sort of way. However, as stated earlier in this post the reader starts to see a change in attitude and Sontag starts to pick up on some of the "key words" or some of the "unreservedly moralistic" ways to talking that the Vietnamese were accustomed to. She now refers to the Vietnam militia as "the front" instead of Viet Cong, and African American are now seen as "black people" instead of negros. Even later in her journal she refers to them as being "too generous" and while an honest and thoughtful statement that only makes me wonder what is to be said about the American public if the Vietnamese moralistic ways are too generous?

Still at the end of her journal we see that change that I so easily predicted. She got a first hand look into the lives and customs of the Vietnamese and learned to accept generosity and pondered that same question about what is to be said about "ours." Nevertheless, she expected to see an angry country and got a quite amiable one that were fighters and were just supporting their country just as the US did. Yet, the whole change comes at the end of the journal when she learns to have a higher appreciation for the people of Vietnam and have learned lessons that will not only play out in her memory but in her day to day interactions back at home in the USA.

"Life Here is Both Uglier and more Promising."

Preconceived notions are a part of everyday thought. Someone would be lying if they said they never thought about how or what something was going to be like before it happened. Susan Sontag was a victim of her own preconceived notions about Vietnam as shown in her story, "Trip to Hanoi." She spends a majority of the story struggling with why this place is not how she envisioned it, therefore causing her frustration with her experience.

It is nearly impossible for anybody to envision a post-war Vietnam who has never stepped foot in the country before. While the U.S. was showered with news, pictures, and video of the war in Vietnam and its aftermath, nobody has any idea what the situation trully is. We may only have preconceived notions of the culture and how they are adapting to their situations. As Sontag states, "Indeed, the problem was that Vietnam had become so much a fact of my consciousness as an American that I was having enormous difficulty getting outside my head." (Sontag, p. 209) This explains her uneasiness with her over accommodating hosts. She does not realize the cultural differences between her own nation and the one she treads on in the story. She sees a nation of war-torn refugees living the best they can.

Sontag's story, in a rhetorical sense, is a lesson acceptance. Her frustration is a lesson taught to all who read this story. She is arguing (in an excellently dictated manner I might add) that when thrown into a situation that is not of the norm, look to see the cultural signifigance and learn from it. Susan Sontag states at the end of the text, "I came back from Hanoi considerably chastened. Life here looks both uglier and more promising." (Sontag, p. 271) While her bitterness with the state of the nation exists strongly, she sees that hope still lies in the generosity of Vietnam's citizens.

Culture Clash

When Susan Sontag first arrives in Hanoi, she does not have the most optimistic view of the place. It is difficult for her to relate to the Vietnamese living in the area because of both the cultural and language barrier. She feels she must talk in more simplified terms and is unaccustomed to the constant kindness and hospitality from the Vietnamese. Sontag finds herself feeling rather hopeless since her attempts to understand the people of Hanoi are not progressing. However, as she continues to observe the people and their way of living, she begins to understand the depth of the Vietnamese culture. They are not just a warring, Communist country as a majority of Americans perceive them to be. They are deeply involved in the history of their country, embracing the hardships they have gone through to unify them as a whole. Each individual, filled with strong patriotism, works to preserve the culture and identity of Vietnam. Their love for their country drives them, and even though they are not the richest of countries, they still find a joy in themselves and each other to live contently and modestly.

Vietnam is so unlike America in many ways. Sontag realizes how efficient the Vietnamese are, utilizing every resource possible to fix the war-stricken countryside and land. The people have a strong sense of respect for one another and are not sucked in to sexual desires so easily as Americans can be. They emphasize cleanliness and sanitation, and they are absolutely thrilled to explain how Vietnam has grown and progressed since gaining independence. They look towards the future and do not hold grudges against other countries. Despite the fact that the Vietnam War has torn apart their country and ruined hundreds of thousands of lives, Vietnam still views America with reverence, not hate. Through the hardships that Vietnam has had to endure, the people have grown stronger together and developed in a positive way, always supporting each other. Sontag reveals the uniqueness of this culture through detailed stories and encounters she came across on her visit to Hanoi, exposing the other side of Vietnam that many people do not see.

Trip To Hanoi

From the very beginning of Trip To Hanoi, Susan Sontag states her strong anti-war stance, and so, I went in with some preconceived notions about how I thought this novel would play out. I was fully expecting to hear graphic stories of the Vietnamese suffering at the merciless hands of the Americans. I prepared myself for gore, trauma, tragedy and hostility. Then I started reading. Needless to say, I was wrong. Trip to Hanoi is an unmistakably anti-war rhetorical piece, but instead of focusing on graphic tales of death and suffering, Sontag instead tries to persuade her audience by humanizing the Vietnamese people and passively challenging pro-war reasoning, yet I believe that it fails in the ultimate goal of motivating the audience to support her cause.

First and foremost, Sontag spends most of the article humanizing the Vietnamese to Americans who, as she describes, usually posses a mental representation of the Vietnamese that is somewhat unnatural and most definitely different from Americans. Instead of taking the approach that I expected; recounting stories of horrific suffering and trying to shock the audience, Sontag employs this more subtle rhetorical methodology to, I believe, considerable effectiveness. She beings by describing some of the misconceptions she herself had as she went in. In fact, much of the first portion of the novel is dedicated to her struggling to cope with the differences between her expectations and reality. She summarizes her feelings well by saying “What I’d been creating and enduring for the last four years was a Vietnam inside my head….[But] the Vietnam I’d been thinking about for years was scarcely filled out at all”. Sontag doesn’t try to portray the Vietnamese as exact duplicates of Americans; she dedicates a lot of the novel to describing some of the differences, but she recognizes that most of the differences stem from their vastly different culture. She never paints them as inherently un-human or lacking in some basic American components of humanity. Her primary goal is to portray that although the Vietnamese have different practices than most Americans, they are inherently the same and need to be considered as much. However, she also doesn’t portray them just as human beings but instead she goes farther to describe how they are, in fact, very likable people. She frequently discusses their helpfulness and generosity. She also clearly states that the Vietnamese actually like Americans. They obviously do not like that they are being attacked by Americans, but yet, she finds through her interviews that most Vietnamese still idolize America and gladly accept and even pursue some aspects of American culture. At the time of her writing, because of the war, many Americans were undoubtedly harboring ill-will towards the Vietnamese. So, Sontag decided to use this as a starting point for her anti-war argument by portraying the Vietnamese as extremely kind, compassionate and overall likable. I found this technique to be very disarming because I was expecting a very challenging and graphic recount of war stories, so this affable description of everyday life in Hanoi was rather appealing. As Heinrichs states in Thank You For Arguing, the first step in persuading an audience is changing its mood, and Sontag’s strategy of personifying the Vietnamese definitely changed my mood.

Another common element in Trip to Hanoi is Susan Sontag’s passive challenges to the contemporary logic supporting the war. Two of the main arguments for American occupation of Vietnam was to liberate the Vietnamese from Communism and to stop the spread of Communism. However, Sontag challenges the logic of the arguments in a very non-aggressive and therefore non alarming manner. Although she never directly states that every person in Vietnam does not want to be “liberated” from communism, through her interviews she suggests the idea that maybe they actually welcome communism. She often describes how communism works well with their peasant lifestyle in that the principles of sharing and equality coincide with their culture and values. Also, she talks about their pride as a country and their wish to remain solitary, not under the control of another country such as the U.S. Also, she never shows a direct support for communism, but she also never really acknowledges any of it’s supposed evils that most Americans held as absolute truth. She never states that America should become communist and she never says that capitalism is bad, she basically just acknowledges that communism seems to work well for the Vietnamese. Sontag is able to contradict common conceptions without seeming aggressive. And for those who still believed the war was justifiable, she basically stated that the Vietnamese will not lose the war, but once again, she did this in a very non-aggressive manner. In essence, she merely reiterated the history of Vietnam that she learned through her stay, telling of how numerous other countries have tried to control Vietnam, and yet they all have been overthrown. She then tells how, in the eyes of the Vietnamese, the Americans are no different than the French, or the Chinese, or any other previous insurgent, and therefore, the U.S. too will fail. The passive-aggressive manner in which she makes all these arguments I found to be very effective. If she had directly came out and stated “Communism is good and here is a list of reasons why…” I probably would have disregarded nearly everything she said, but because she adopts this subtle approach, I never was taken aback and therefore, I was more likely to believe what she said. This accomplishes Heinrichs’ second step: change the audience’s opinion.

However, Heinrichs’ third and final step, filling the audience with a desire to act, is where I feel that Sontag does not succeed. Up until the end, I found everything that she said to be fairly logical and agreeable. However, once she reached the point where she left Hanoi, it seems to me that she adopted a very introspective outlook, which does not help persuade an audience. She dedicates the last portion of the novel to describing her struggles adapting to life outside of Hanoi again, and she wonders, through her writing, whether she will revert to her old ways. Finally, she ends by saying “I discover that what happened to me in North Vietnam did not end with my return to America, but is still going on.” So, obviously this experience changed her. However, she never really seems to make a point to lead the audience in any clear direction of action. Obviously, most people who read this will never have the opportunity that she had. So, I would have thought that she would have at least provided some general idea of how they should follow up this story with action, yet there is none. Susan Sontag’s novel was able to change my mood and change my mind, but it was not able to fill me with a desire to act, and therefore, I do not feel that Trip to Hanoi is rhetorically effective.

Aristotle would approve of Susan Sontag

Throughout reading this text, I could not help noticing the different ways in which Susan Sontag's writing choices in Trip to Hanoi adhere to the ones prescribed by Jay Heinrichs in Thank You For Arguing. Sontag was able to weave a beautiful narrative about the struggle that she experienced with matching her preconceived ideas about the situation in Vietnam and what she actually observed with her own eyes while visiting Hanoi. Sontag was able to convey her ideas in a logical manner that is easy for her audience to understand by using the techniques explained by Heinrichs.

Sontag clearly states the main point of her argument not only in the introductory paragraphs, but also scatters references to the thesis throughout the text. The last sentence of the introduction is the actual thesis statement, "My problem was that I was now actually in Vietnam for a brief time, yet somehow unable to make the full intellectual and emotional connections that my political and moral solidarity with Vietnam implied", which prepares the reader to jump right into making sense of the journal entries that follow (Sontag 212).

The author makes great use of vivid situational descriptions throughout the article, which closely follows one of Heinrichs' tenets, "The more vividly you give the audience the sensations of an experience, the greater the emotion you can arouse" (Heinrichs 80). Establishing the right mood and stirring the reader's emotion is one of the most infallible ways to stir the audience's reaction and opinion in favorable direction. By giving the reader lengthy, detailed, and emotionally charged descriptions of people, events, and setting, Sontag ensures that he will most positively "take her side", so to speak. 

Sontag also stresses importance of word choice in discussing the necessity of stylized language, which makes use of "simple declarative sentences" (Sontag 216). She also concedes that much of what has been said between her and the people of Vietnam was inevitably lost in translation because of the different meanings loaded in each word or phrase. She also states that it was important to learn to pay more attention to whatever was constantly reiterated, commonplace, in order to discover the standard words and phrases to be richer than she had thought. 

The author also speak at length about decorum both in the manner of dress as well as accepted behavior. Sontag discovered the importance of adhering to the preconceptions and standards of the group you belong to in order to be accepted and understood. She also realized that she had to change her frame of thought (that of an American) to that of the people that she was surrounded with.

Overall, I found this article to be incredibly emotionally charged and very moving. Sontag achieves her goal of making the reader understand the situation in Northern Vietnam and to sympathize with the people of that country by using many of the techniques that Jay Heinrichs lays out in Thank You For Arguing.

Through the text of  Trip to Hanoi an important application pertaining to humanity and interactions within was uncovered by Sontag through her interactions with a foreign culture. Sontag uncovers this insight through a systematic journaling of her experience coupled with later and compounded insight. Through her experience she relates the unexpected and enlightening experience that showed to her the reasons for the great complexities of the vietnam war. 

In the early stages of her experience in Hanoi, Sontag becomes frustrated with the seemingly choked relations with her Vietnamese hosts.  In an overly accommodating experience she feels childlike and finds her actions conforming to her feelings. This does not settle well and creates the frustration within her. For her nothing is as her preconceived ideas suggest, and she lost in a culture completely foreign to her. She does not learn until further insight that her frustration was a direct result of this clash of cultures. This clash of cultures, she goes on to find, created many of the complexities underlying the Vietnam War. In the part of the writing that relates her experience though her journaling of the experience, we get a taste of her experiance as it clashes with the culture she is partaking of unknowingly. It is not until later that Sontag realizes that the way she is being treated is natural in the Vietnamese culture. Her insight in the later part of the text outlines this in relation to the problems created by the U.S.'s presence in vietnam. 

What Sontag learned and related through her experience is directly applicable to our own interaction with others. Beyond, but contributing to, rhetoric is each individuals own life experiences and beliefs.  Sontag portrayed this on a much larger scale but to the same end. 

Clashing of Preconceived Thoughts and Reality: Looking Through the American “Lense”

When reading “Trip to Hanoi” I saw Susan Sontag’s deliberate intent to show the conflict with the American view of the Vietnam War and North Vietnam in respect to the true reality of these topics. She states, “Like anyone who cared about Vietnam in the last years, I already knew a great deal; and I could not hope to collect more or significantly better information in a mere two weeks than was already available” (pg. 208). Upon entering North Vietnam, this thought of knowing much already and believing to learn little through the experience in Hanoi, I feel, hindered her from fully grasping new truths from a different perspective. As a student I am able to sit in a classroom to learn and discuss the effects and “truths” about the Vietnam War, I may gain much knowledge on the topic, but my perception is distorted. My sources of information are generally given from an American’s perspective; therefore, I develop partial picture of the realities of the war.

When reading this excerpt, Susan repeatedly showed me the damaging effects of entering a different country with many preconceived notions. For instance, she states, “Judging for these first days, I think it’s hopeless. I can’t cross. I’m overcome by how exotic the Vietnamese are- impossible for us to understand them, clearly impossible for them to understand us.” (Pg. 223) This section shows a beautiful example of when preconceived thoughts and beliefs meet the reality of different perspective. Sontag is bombarded with a hopeless, discontented feeling as she struggles to connect with her experience. Looking into a society with an American “lense” causes us to disconnect from relating with the people, culture, social norms, etc. We may never be able to look into the world with completely clear, unbias “lenses”; yet, a deliberate intent to try to clear our lenses helps us better understand some different. In particular, American perceptions can be an extremely hinder acclimating to a different society because the American society is so unique. Our culture is unlike many others because of many factors including: the ethnic diversity, politics, and history. Therefore, wearing an American “lense” can easily make you and the new society feel unrelatable.

I enjoyed Sontag’s rhetorically showing the conflict that occurs when we contrast our American ideals and thoughts on the Vietnam War with the North Vietnamese perception. It was enlightening to see the dramatic disconnect with Americans and the North Vietnamese. She moved me to further explore this conflict and attempt to look for some resolution to these societal disconnects. How are we to abandon our beliefs and thoughts to blindly enter North Vietnam? It could not be wise or even possible to eliminate all our preconceived notions. Sontag states in the last line of the excerpt, “So I discover that what happened to me in North Vietnam did not end with my return to America, but is still going on” (Pg.274). I see the resolution to be an attempt to momentarily clear our minds of oppositional thoughts and indulge ourselves in the new experience. We should make conscious efforts to acclimate and understand different ideas, norms, and perspectives. Then, afterwards, self-reflect and once again grab hold of our beliefs and thoughts. I believe if more individuals practice these methods, then, perhaps people across the world will be less disconnected and more understanding of each other.

Susie’s Hanoi Diary

One may choose to believe Sontag when she states that she did not intend to write about her trip to Hanoi; one may also choose to believe that a group of heroic Americans was responsible for causing Flight 93 to crash into an open field in Pennsylvania, rather than the White House. If one is to believe Sontag’s claims that she did not decide to write about her trip until after its conclusion, then he must accept that the journal she kept, for purely personal purposes in the midst of a visit in which each day’s schedule was highly structured and free time was purportedly spent wandering the city streets, contained off-the-cuff, extemporaneous prose of the following sort: “Thus, the gluttonous habits of my consciousness prevent me from being at home with what I most admire, and—for all my raging against America—firmly unite me to what I condemn. ‘American friend’ indeed!”

Alternatively, one may view the journal excerpts included in “Trip to Hanoi” as having been written with an audience in mind, and having been presented as excerpts from a ‘journal’ for rhetorical purposes. Taken in this light, the journal section plays a key role in Sontag’s argument: the concession. In her journal entries, Sontag’s initial reception of Hanoi is colored by a moral ambivalence deeply rooted in her own western way of thinking. She is frustrated by her inability to understand the North Vietnamese people she encounters; despite her best intentions to remain receptive and open-minded, she cannot help but feel suspicious that their overly simplistic moral outlook and the redundant, terse manner in which they express themselves are concealing something- or even worse, that the Vietnamese, with whom she has sympathized so fervently from afar, are an intrinsically simple, childlike people. In her journal entries, Sontag concedes that she had her own doubts about these Hanoi folks at first; that even she is not so enlightened as to have been able to transcend the entirety of that crude American mindset which her generation has been unfortunate enough to inherit.

The reader is intrigued by the brutal self-honesty found in the journal section, as seen in such statements as, “it seems to me that while my consciousness does include theirs, or could, theirs could never include mine…I have more on my mind than they do.” A white, liberal, academia-dwelling activist admitting to herself that a part of her feels inherently superior, on a broad intellectual level, to the people of a foreign culture she is freshly encountering? Sacrebleu! The reader, continuing through the journal section and making it well into the main body, in which Sontag reflects upon her trip, finds that Sontag’s initial ambivalence gives way to a…well, rather than compose my own cutting, critical manner of characterization here, I think I’ll let a few highlights from the latter portion of Susan’s narrative speak for themselves: “the North Vietnamese is an extraordinary human being…Vietnamese are ‘whole’ human beings, not ‘split’ as we are…while the Vietnamese are stripped down, they are hardly simple in any sense that grants us the right to patronize them…they don’t experience as we do the isolation of a ‘private self’…one can’t exaggerate the fervor of their patriotic passion and their intense attachment to particular places.”

Ultimately, I find Sontag’s characterization of Hanoi and the North Vietnamese people (see above) to be preposterous on a general psychological level, and every bit as propagandist as the “rhetoric of patriotism in the United States [which] has been in the hands of reactionaries and yahoos,” which she so sharply decries. However, I must admit that I find her rhetoric to be effective, on the whole. By devoting considerable detail to portraying herself, in her journal entries, as being beset by a traveler’s crises of identity and a disorienting ambivalence during her first days in Hanoi, she concedes just enough to make the reader wonder if he is reading a work which might actually contain an interesting perspective- and not just a politicized caricature. If only Susie could have mustered the restraint to make her on-the-ground diary’s prose a bit more believable, and to lay it on just a smidgen thinner in her final estimation of the North Vietnamese people, ‘Trip to Hanoi’ might have really left me thinking.

Shocking

Throughout the beginning of the essay, the author uses a contrasting view of the North Vietnamese then many Americans had at that time. They were not crazy radicals who wanted world domination, they were just people fighting to unify their country which had been torn apart for a long time.
She writes about the journey over there and how she did not know anyone, but also about how she was expecting so many things about her trip that would turn out not true, just like the fact that she said she would not write about it. She uses rhetoric to appeal to the audiences sense of humanity by showing that the North Vietnamese are people that die just as we can. It instills the notion that there are regular people in the North that are just like people that are in the US, which would begin to make people who had not been interested in anti-war protests to begin to question the war and its tactics.
She gives the reader insight into the lives of the people and what they are dealing with everyday so that the reader can know of the atrocities that are being experienced. All the while she is also giving the reader an idea of what it means to be an outsider in the war.